Virus C vs Virus Snow?
 

Hey!

I am torn between these two models. Unfortunately I don't have the chance to demo the C, which would make this a lot easier.

Feature wise I prefer the snow a bit. But many people seem to be claiming that the C/older models sound better than the newer TI line. For example the guy who created this great sound set: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkOTdUsluQk

Or these PWM pads:

http://i.cr3ation.co.uk/dl/s1/mp3/ae...lassicpads.mp3


Is this one big sham or do the models really sound different?

Hi there, welcome to the mad house.

Sound engine feature wise I'd prefer the Snow a LOT! The jump from the C to TI is huge. However the Snow has fewer knobs etc.

A small number people have said the TI sounds different to the C, but to my knowledge this has yet to be proven (with audio examples, etc.). It might even be something as simple as perception of the difference in levels on the outputs, given that the TI natively uses balanced connections (although both can be used) whereas the C primarily uses unbalanced ones, or the increase in definition of the analogue outputs of the TI over the C.

Thankyou Timo!

I actually sent an e-mail to access regarding this issue and they were nice enough to respond within a few hours.

I think sharing this would be fine:


I guess it's a myth busted!

It would be nice to hear how big of a difference the AD/DA converters play though. But I can't imagine it being that big. One thing that may also contribute is that it's said the later models have a hi-boost on the presets, which may confuse people. Not sure if that has any merit though.


Anyway this is good enough for me, I think I will be getting the snow.

Hi Spreader, nice to hear that from Access itself!

I'm a C user, so when you take the Snow we could do a battle! :)

let me know and enjoy.

Although I do not own any of the Ti Series, I firstly added a Virus KB to my arsenal and **I do not do trance**, rather, more experimental soundscapes to industrial music. I LOVE the KB and wil be diving deeper for many many years in programming, learning new things as well for long time.
A buddy of mine has Virus KC and although he says he really wished he had an KB in addition because of the more aggressive to incredible warm/fatness (which I agree it has and more), he loves the filters moreso on the Virus KC and after playing around for some time on his KC, and liking some newer, more immediate access to the ARP, for instance, without having to menu-dive for it as on the KB, I actually heard ENOUGH of a difference between the two that I had to turn down his offer to buy my KB for more than I paid for it AND a few months ago, bought a Virus KC because due to some menu-diving and my way of working, finding enough distinctions between the two (with some obvious overlap as will not be daft and deny that), at least to MY ears, I love them both and for whatever reason, loving them both, finding the KC more of an aggressively cold (in a great way), and harder to "tame" than the KB. This also obviously could be due to me being newer to the KC.
A newer aufio interface is in future as want to use firewire 400 that's on dedicated DAW PC and use oscilliscope program to compare the basic waveforms from KB/KC, then progressively add same filter, LFO, et al in comparisons between the two to view what differences, if any, show-up there. Not that I DOUBT Access' statement but perhaps there's more identical sound when comparing a Virus KC and a Ti Snow than there is between KB/KC??! My ears and a few others hear what I hear and I guess it comes down to what I like and if it makes me happy owning KB and KC, that's all that matters!
In the same vein, although own a Blofeld keyboard, decided to purchase buddy's Waldorf Yellow Q Rack simply because just like the Virus Line of synths, **nothing**, not even the blofeld's Q-modeled filters come remotely close to emulating this beast! She can be warm and fuzzy but just as literally rip your face off with sound as the Virus synths--yet distinct from the Virus.
These differences in VA's seem heavily located with each of their filter types and ability to modulate anything with everything and of course each of their AD/DA converters.

It's more a question of what really matters to you. I made that very same choice myself, once. Got a C. Because to me the hands on approach was the thing, at the moment. Wouldn't mind to have a Snow to, because of features that have been added meanwhile. And that's without mentioning the Virus Control plug-in and it's added convenience. I really learned a lot from building my sounds tweaking knobs instead of going through menus and I feel I've developed a very intuitive way of getting sounds out of it. Most of what people talk about when they go obsessive about some classic is related to both the sound and the way they used to work with them, it's all to easy to get lost just tweaking knobs and playing - it all feels like an instrument.

So you'd probably be better off with a Virus ti desktop version - if you want the best of both worlds: to have the latest features and the knob action, if you ask me. But where money is a problem, you need to ask yourself if hands action and knob tweaking is more important to you then new features and integration with the Daw (that sometimes has it's flaws, like most guys here flame about all the time, but seems to be a lot better these days.

So well said! Without a single doubt, I think it's VERY important for a person to learn "Basic Synthesis 101 and 102" by using a physical interface and learning modulation methods "hands-on" coupled with one's ears. That could be a real analog or a virtual analog, using subtractive synthesis and actually, even using a cheap Korg Monotron to firstly see and hear the basic components' interactions with each other. Mentioned this because if one wants their sound to "be their own", regardless of which synth one is using, it really requires one to KNOW how to get beyond the facade of presets. Technological advancements are continuing to be great for musicians but what I have repeatedly seen through ALOT of reading many pro forums is this "immediacy approach" where people have owned a synth and do nothing but purchase new preset soundsets rather than actually go down the rabbit hole and learn to make entirely original sounds on their own and this seems to apply to alot of vst-based synths. I think this also contributes to stereotypes about certain synths "ONLY" good for trance, et al! It would do alot of people some good to get back to basics and even learn what the definition of musical synthesizer is even. Here's a cool link that I found that takes one on this journey and is a keeper : http://moinsound.wordpress.com/2011/...t-synthesizer/ Lastly, as tweakhead said quite rightly, alot of factors should be considered when choosing your synth because the physical interface is just as important as the key-action. My 3 or 4 cents! HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Buy Virus C, not TI
 

I would recommend the Virus C, not the TI. Some the new whizbang features of the TI include instability, unreliability. For example, the atomizer rarely works...I have to go to the edit menu and toggle the atomizer on/off setting a coupla times to get it to work at all. I sold my Virus C for a TI and I miss the sound of the C also.

A bit too late to get the C as I already have the snow. No problems so far...

I would be glad to do a comparsion....


One question though, is there anyway to get the filter decay to be more linear? I think it's too snappy to get good plucks.

I am glad to do a comparison too.

We could use the same patch in single mode, same volume, export as wav and load in soundcloud for a side by side ear test.

I will post a patch asap.
(of course we will use a Virus C patch for compatibility reasons)

Perhaps having ALL effects and modulations off/removed from both sounds and using rather an init simple sine wave, for example, would then be comparing sound without that given Virus version's embellishment of effects, which would kind of be a fly in ointment of a true comparison. Just a thought.

I say this because soundets would be obviously different from say a Snow, Virus B, and Virus C. A test of same waveform "naked" would make more sense as a whole different can of worms of same "patch" with same effects and modulations could be done as well.

Here is a comparsion with the video I posted eariler. For now I won't say which is which or anything more than this. Can you guess which is which? There is a pretty big difference.

http://www9.zippyshare.com/v/68074414/file.html
http://www.mediafire.com/?nt5be03k83obox8
Virus.wav - 1.5 Mb

Set the decay time roughly to what you want.

Then in the modulation matrix, use FiltEnv as a modulation source, and FltDecay as the destination. Nudge the destination amount upwards slightly (~15-30) to make it it less logarithmic and more linear (as shown in yellow, it's still a curve, though, with a slight ease-in and -out). Increasing positive number for destination amount even further will make the decay last a longer time before falling off quickly (shown in red).



Negative values (blue) will decrease the curve even faster.

The recorded levels are different. The latter half sounds cleaner, more separated. Sounds like the oscillator that is running an octave higher is given greater prevalence (osc balance) in the latter than the previous one, or there is a oscillator sync/phasing difference, or EQ, etc.. More programming issues rather than a D/A difference. Did you load a TI patch into the C (or vice versa)? Very important. Or did you start each patch from scratch?

I absolutely, categorically, do not think you can compare Virus patches in such a loose fashion.

We're not talking simple static samples here, but patches that have free running oscillators, polyphonic free running LFOs, free-running polyphonic unison, natural phasing, and a whole host of other programmed 'instabilities' put in place (via mod matrix or otherwise) to make the sounds less ordered and more organic or thicker, along with any differences in stereo, free-running delay lines and time-variant modulated chorus/phaser effects in full stereo, PureTuning, and recording issues such as tuning, transposition, levels, time-bases, and any midi modulated (velocity, etc.) parameters, etc.

Try recording the same midi riff ten times using just the same synth. I can guarantee you it will sound very different every single time due to the above.

Even LFOs running in poly mode is enough to dramatically change things every time due to phasing, let alone anything else.

To really compare, it'd have to be done in a methodic strict fashion, starting from scratch, entirely stripped of the ambiguous free running stuff, and ensuring that both synths used only common features between them, and strict recording policies were used.

YOU SAID what I would have liked to have, but much more eloquently, TIMO! Like I said in earlier posts, ANY true comparison needs to be BARE BONES without embellishments. Again, I am saying compare a basic since wave side by side with no mod routings, etc, etc. Comparing Virus C to Ti this way using the visuals of an oscillascope with these bare bone tones rather than soley human ear will even be better. But I did not initially comment after listing to both clips because I did not think it was proper way to make ANy kind of emperical comparison.
Thankjs TIMO for saving my brain from having to stress beyond the perhaps simplistic initial reply I made, but all the same, my initial reply WAS germaine.
Robert

Hey!

I loaded that patch to my snow. Is there something I should be aware of?

And yeah the patch is free running, but I think that the spectral differences are pretty clear. However it would be great if one of you would try that out on C. It's possible that the brighter tone comes from more aliasing. Or perhaps a pre-amp. Or maybe the settings are indeed different. Not sure if I should be aware of some initial different settings on the snow...

Interestingly, the C example produces a lot more artifacts in the low end. Something weird going with stereo as well (shifting from left to right). But I agree that it sounds better, (it's the 2nd) and I couldn't get the snow sound like that. I used the USB outs. BTW the C clip is MP3, so that may explain something too.

But yeah, maybe simpe saw wave would be a more scientific test. The samples are pretty close to RMS matched, but brighter sounds sound louder.

After reading the above, there are so many things I wouldn't know where to begin, other than saying what you did is not a controlled test. Absolutely countless things could cause the differences in the clip. We as mere listeners have no insight over how the test was prepared and conducted.

You cannot merely take a random patch from off the shelf, load it into both Viri', and then record them however you wish.

I have a Virus Indigo (B series). Unfortunately I don't have a TI to compare the two under controlled conditions. :|

I didn't mean that example to be some kind of end-it-all test.

I simply recorded the part on snow and compared it to the original recording. I have no idea how the original was even recorder so yeah...

I would like to know if there are some settings on the snow that I should check for best compatibility though.

I correct my misspelling of "SINE WAVE", the most fundamental of all tones and could in-fact be viewed as it is in wavetable synthesis, as the sine wave without ANY extra filtering, modulational or otherwise routings and of course bare of any effects from both instruments, not to mention the audio quality that for instance MP3 is sort of a "downgrade" in audio quality.
For a true scientific test with emperical results, it would require if even such a "fair and equal" test atmosphere could be produced; both instruments would have the EXACT same amplification, speakers, and the real "FLY IN OINTMENT" is the fact The Virus SNOW requires a computer environment as its role also of an interface, of which the Virus C does not require. THEN that presents the impossibilities really of such a comparison because even the Digital/Analog/Digital Converters would be different.
I suggest we all just enjoy our individual incarnations of these wonderful instruments Access produced for ours and those we may entertain WITHOUT prejudice because ultimately, the evolution of the Virus is just that, based upon it's predecessor's engine and improved in different ways but, in the end, BOTH are Virus synthesizers and each version still to this day surpasses most of which is out there and has been produced. The only exception in my opinion would be another German manufacturer, the former incarnation of Waldorf, the Q engine and the newer incarnation of Waldorf, The Blofeld.
I think proposed tests such as this really do nothing more than place a divide amongst us, whether intended or not and again, we should simply ENJOY owning the most advanced instrument that's ONLY limitation is one's own creativity and imaginations!
Let's live without petty indifference of what Viri is "better or best", rather, continue to push the limits not yet discovered with EACH incarnation of indeed the SAME engine, with simply another name.
We can ALL agree that the German's RULE the synthesis technology many times over and that the old rule of the "Big Three in Asia", is relatively past tense!
Fervently,
Robert

Why does this REALLY MATTER?!! The engineers at Access stated themself that the Viri engine IS the same save from some digital/analog converter differences! Who are WE to really question THAT coming from the emperical "horses mouth"? Really!

I happen to own a Virus KB and KC because I like fundamental differences in the interface and filters but that has nothing to do with the basic waveforms; it's just my preference for what each instrument offers in the physical interface and what I as a musician would like for immediacy in playing for layering sounds. This point of which is "better" is oxymoronic in SO many ways!

What do you think of a semi-controlled test using Ableton live with fixed settings inside and a midi clip, routed to Virus Ti and and C simple waveforms without effects?

We should only not consider volume differences because of different audio cards used... But just compare tone, timbre.

If there's someone with Ableton and Virus Ti who want partecipate please trow your email into my private message box.

Yeah that would work, then sample align and phase invert.

Or just play back the same clip I did, and if it's again noticebly brighter, it's pretty likely because of the C. It's a good patch to test aliasing since it's worbly and high pitched.

yes, i can prepare the Ableton file with all clips inside, send the project to someone with the Ti, export wav, then done.

who want to partecipate?

Make sure anyone who participates checks and uses the same global settings as your own, including PureTuning, Global Transpose and Master Tuning.

:confused: Perhaps those participating and conducting this futile test need to read the definition of what "THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD" is for ANY emperical results to be relavent. There's just way too many uncontrollable variables and The Scientific Method INVOLVES a controlled environment as well as a control group. I still hear no talk about using an oscillascope program because if you are reliant only on different set of human ears--there's another huge variable.

I think there should be no pre-amps pulling the volume on this, to. which is so easy to forget when recording audio with an interface. and even without that, which can be thought off as another stage of processing by itself, I'm pretty sure that different interfaces may produce a different sound...

so my advice would be, if this is done by the same person, to use the stereo outs on both the b, c and ti. so that the signal path would be the same in all examples.

but even though it's kind of futile, I confess I'd like to listen to such tests done right. and analyse them myself to. I guess it's the geek side of me speaking here. No shame though. Cheers

What makes absolutely no sense here is "Spreader" was given "THE ANSWER" from Access as copied/pasted from his own post at start of this thread, yet obviously refutes the very engineers that definitely know more than any of us on this forum: Originally Posted by access:

"The filter models and the "classic" oscillator model in the Virus TI are the exact same as in the older Virus models. There was absolutely no change. Of course the TI offers other oscillator types at this point and it also offers more effects, etc., but the base features are the same in all the models - so is the sound.
The difference here are solely the D/A converters, which very obviously got way better over the years, when you compare the D/A converters in a Virus "a" to a Virus b to a Virus c and now the Virus TI models"
Also, TIMO said rightly about the audio differences in balanced/unbalanced outputs, et al. It's just anoying when one was given their answer from Access themself, yet has some Ego or Id thing to prove here!
Robert

My humble opinion, the more people post in forums griping, the less time they spend actually writing/producing/synthesising/learning to use their ears ;).

But i've been lucky with my TI working for the most part as it should - with the only quibbles being dropped clocks now and again, and some scary moments using betas, and its been painless since os4.

Why are you spouting stuff I didn't say all the time? Could you please tell me where I "obviously refuted the engineers from access"?

All I did was that I put a clip here, saying pretty much nothing and now all the sudden you are complaining I am refuting access?

People, LIGHTEN UP. It's not my fault that you intepret my words as something they are not and then blame me for actually claiming it's supposed to be something it's not. FFS.


For clarification (I believe this is the 2nd time now?): I did NOT mean that test to be scientific test. I just wanted to compare how the snow sounded compared to the clip. Just something fun, that's all. I do believe the engine is the same, but the AD/DA conversion+DIs+pre-amps etc, will make a difference. Also the FFT would suggest that there is more aliasing in the C, which there probably is. Again, not claiming there necessarily is.

That being said I would like to know if there are some settings I should check on the snow when loading banks made with A/B/C to make them sound like intended.

C'mon guys, it's just a game, it's just for fun.

Don't take the comparison proposal too seriously...

so true... but it's cool to feed the geek side ;)

Indeed.

I have spent some time with the snow now. It's a great synth for that kind of worbly lead sounds, the FM, ring mods, LFOs are great.

However, the filters... I don't like them. Or rather I don't like the envelopes. They sound plasticky to me due to the exessive punch they have. I usually roll attack point down to 2 to get rid of that clicky, "compressed sounding" attack (maybe someone knows what I mean - or perhaps I am crazy?). I usually roll of the punch just a bit as well, I can't stand that "compression sound" for a lack of a better word.

The trick that Timo posted here works great though, I guess I just prefer the more linear shape of the envelope. The only problem I have with the trick is that it slows down the filter A LOT, which would not be a problem, except for the fact that the scale runs out. So even on fastest setting there is still too long decay to get my favored pluck sound. Any ideas to make the attack faster?

That said I dig the LP18 analog filter... Yuuum.:cool: More synths should have these.

Not sure what you mean. But by default the oscillators on the virus behave like analogue, that means "free running", try to adjust their "phase" and it becomes more steady - saying this because sometimes this can create some sort of click, with very snappy envelope settings. If you think it's hitting hard, take away the punch intensity all together. About Timo's tip: it's called recursive modulation, very useful and shouldn't lead to any increase in attack time, it's just the curve that changes, also can be done for the decay and release. I don't agree that the envelopes behave badly on the virus at all...

maybe post an example for us to listen to, would be easier ;)

I entirely agree with Tweakhead in that the Virus envelopes behave exactly like "BASIC 101 SYNTHESIS ADSR" with the Virus also having a "T" for Time factor within envelope structure. I own both a Virus KB and KC and I learned basic 101 synthese back in 1982 on a Korg MS20, a classic real analog monster monosynth.
Matter-in-fact, the envelopes are extremely versatile in that couppled with Keytracking and modulation routing, one can have quite the evolving sound over a great period of time or be made to get beautiful pluck-type attacks akin to cello with fingers.
Then when a person dives deeper in basic 101 synthesis and learns how to manipulate bipolar and looping envelopes bringing LFO's into the manipulation--the possibilities are only limited by one's creativity or ability/knowledge.
There's free download on Access' website that was included with at least the B and C series synths called "PROGRAMMING ANALOGUE SYNTHS--Virus Tutorial By Howard Scarr". Suggested for all levels of synthesis, including even the novice--FYI.

That "CLICK" Tweakhead mentioned happens to also be a very desirable attribute when programming a classic Hammond Organ sound, especially hand when velocity triggers it and that type of click coupled with noise/filter takes you down the drum kit path as well.
It should go without having to say this but there's seperate envelopes for say the filter, amp, etc.

Played with the snow a bit more.

Indeed, if someone knows of a way to make the filters faster with the more linear envelopes, that would be great. I don't have problems with the "click" sound, it was just an observation. Many synths make way more obvious click sounds.

BTW, are the presets for virus A/B/C available somewhere? I heard that the famous Darude "sandstorm" lead sound may be a preset from the B and while I am not the biggest fan, it would be cool to check if that has any merit (I think it's from the TB though).

The Filters on the Virus are pretty standard. You can adjust the Envelope Amount of modulation for each of the two filters, which means exactly that: how much you want the Filter Cutoff to be modulated, either way (positive to the right of where it rests, negative to the left...).

I think you should probably try this with a "init patch" on your virus. Put the filter balance all the way to the left. And then play with just these settings so you get to know them well. Don't even change the CURVE of the envelope's attack, decay and release...
I don't mean to be rude here, but it shows you need to learn some basics ;)

you have some dream machine to do that!

EDIT

the envelopes are fast enough to synthesize very hard hitting drums, or to modulate the filter for very precise and very fast psychedelic trance bass, even on 170+ beats per minute... so it's just a matter of knowing what you're doing, really...

try this, have a low pass filter, close the filter so the tone gets deep enough, then on the filter envelope, put this settings: no attack, a bit of decay, no sustain, and no or very short release, then slowly adjust the envelope amount knob, and play with it, or turn on the arp with "hold" setting enabled, the simple pattern 1 will do... play with it, the punch intensity brings more energy to the sound - so it's just another parameter to play with, for hard hitting sounds it's probably a good idea to turn in up, the other way around, just bring it down, that's it... if you want your waves to recycle on the same point (phase) for each note (which is really important for psychedelic trance bass and other similar sounds where you want it to play in a very stable fashion, adjust the "phase init" parameter, and you get all the precision you need.

Now, if you want it to wooble or sweep, turn the attack up, if you want it to rest on some cutoff point, turn the sustain up, the release is the time it takes to get back to the point where the cutoff knob rests. Play with it! Tweak that thing and open your ears! No problem with the envelopes or filters on the virus. Pretty much the same on any given synth out there (even software ones). Also try the negative polarity on the Filter Envelope. Try to turn down the "tracking of it", which just means that the Cutoff will vary it's position based on the note you press on the keyboard, useful for sounds that cover a larger scale on the keyboard. For examples: when you play low notes, the filter is very closed, when you go up an octave, it opens to allow more content to pass, so forth and so on. It let's you choose the root note for this as well...

Only after you get comfortable with all these settings, you should start experimenting with the two filters combo, either in serial, parallel or split modes.

Why does everyone here misread me? LoL. Perhaps I should be more articulate.

I want the filter envelope to be linear, so to achieve that I do what Timo suggested. Everything is great so far. The problem is that the filter envelope slows down greatly when you do this. So if I set the Filter env amount to positive by as much as I would like the filter decay is slow, even when it's on the fastest setting.

So I can't have more linear envelope + fast decay on the envelope. Maybe some of you know some trick on the virus to make it faster.